The Supreme Court (SC) has disbarred a lawyer who failed to provide support to his minor son and falsified the entries in his son’s birth certificate, among other violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Disbarred was Amador B. Peleo III who was found guilty of gross unlawful, dishonest and deceitful conduct in violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His name was deleted from the Roll of Attorneys.
A press statement issued by the SC’s public information office (PIO) stated that the complaint against Peleo was filed by Marife Venzon with whom he has a son.
The statement stated that “the Court stressed that it was not deciding Peleo’s professional fitness based on a single and one-off private event in his life, but on ‘the confluence of respondent’s acts which already spill beyond what happens inside the privacy of one’s intimate space.”
It said “the Court noted six transgressions of Peleo — he maintained sexual relation with Marife while still lawfully married to his wife; falsified entries in the birth certificate of his son when he claimed to be legally married to Marife; repeatedly failed to give child support to his minor child; misused the legal process by filing a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage without any serious intention to prosecute it; seriously disrespected the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)’s authority and dignity when he disregarded an agreement brokered by the IBP between him and Marife; and deceived the government and private businesses by continuously availing of the Senior Citizens’ discount by misrepresenting himself as a senior when in truth, he was not yet 60 years old.”
“Indeed, public confidence in law and lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the Bar. Hence, every lawyer is duty bound to act and comport himself or herself in such a manner that would promote public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession. Respondent’s conduct does not help in that regard, but worse, directly encourages people to entertain themselves with jokes about lawyers and the legal profession as the butt of their unflattering jokes,” the statement added quoting from the SC decision on the case. (Rey G. Panaligan)
